Suffering withdrawal at the NY Times: Religion correspondent Laurie Goodstein
and editorial director Andrew Rosenthal
The New York Times is apparently suffering from withdrawal symptoms from the lack of any real news in the Catholic Church sex abuse story.
Always eager to smear its local bishop, Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, the Times recently ran three pieces attacking Dolan for merely transferring monies in 2007, when he was Archbishop of Milwaukee, to a cemetery trust fund to ensure that the monies were going to be used as intended by the original donors: for the future care and maintenance of Catholic cemeteries.
In an article about the recent release of documents that are part of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee's bankruptcy proceedings, the Times' Laurie Goodstein (naturally) suggests that the $57 million transfer to a cemetery trust fund was a part of a diabolical plot by Dolan to "protect the assets from victims of clergy sexual abuse who were demanding compensation" by moving the money away.
However, Goodstein makes no mention of the fact that the creation of the trust was actually "required by state law and mandated by the archdiocesan finance council" in order to provide sufficient funds for ongoing and future cemetery maintenance needs.
Rehashing a rehash
Resident anti-Catholic bigot:
The NY Times' Frank Bruni
Back in February 2011, the Times piggybacked on the reporting of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and trumpeted the claims from the notorious Church-suing lawyer Jeff Anderson that the transfer was somehow an effort to "shield" settlement money from accusers who claimed they were abused by priests.
Years later, the Times is once again doing Anderson's bidding by juicing up Anderson's PR machine against the Catholic Church, even though there is no evidence to support Anderson's wacky claims.
And if this were not enough, the Times then published an editorial (orchestrated by the Times' editorial chief Andrew Rosenthal) that once again castigated the Church for abuse episodes committed decades ago and declared that the routine and rational transfer of funds by Dolan was "shocking."
And not to be outdone, the Times' opinion writer Frank Bruni, who has a well-established history of bigoted attacks against the Church, got into the act with a wild-eyed piece ascribing nefarious motivations to Cardinal Dolan's transfer of funds and falsely implying that abuse is somehow still rampant today in the Church. It isn't.
The premise behind all of the Times' articles is downright surreal. The Times implies that before the Church in Milwaukee filed for bankruptcy, it should have ceased all business operations and ensured that all of its monies be used solely to pay abuse claimants and their lawyers to the complete exclusion of all other pressing needs of the diocese, such as employee wages, pensions, outreach to the needy, and cemetery maintenance.
The Times' agenda exposed – again
Of course, the Times' attacks on the Catholic Church have absolutely nothing to do with "protecting children" or even "reporting the news." Its attacks have everything to do with trying to discredit a Church which stands in direct opposition to the paper on nearly every hot-button social issue, whether it be gay "marriage," abortion, or freedom of religion.
Just a couple weeks ago, New York media exploded with the news that some 128 New York City public school staff members have been found guilty of child sex abuse with students since just 2007, yet only 33 have been fired and many have returned to their jobs! (See this, this, this, this, and this.)
It is a huge story if there ever were one. But what has the Times had to say in the last month about this blockbuster news, even though these episodes have happened right in the paper's backyard in New York City? Absolutely nothing.
Instead, the Times would rather rehash old stories about Cardinal Dolan merely doing his job years ago as an archbishop of another city.
Indeed, the New York Times is the gold standard for anti-Catholic bigotry.
Not to worry: the Times is slowly going bankrupt as people get so fed up with thei rpoltical bias the Times just becomes less and less relevant.
Worry about what is happening in your own house before being concerned what is happening in anothers.
Now I must respond to a comment Josie left on a past blog. Since I do not condone violence as she suggested I am violent.
I will leave her with message. Josie, don't fear my words, but if you wish you may fear my very non-violent actions to see that every abusive priest rots in prison, and all the wrongs have been righted, and not one individual never forgets what YOUR most holy church has done to children. All this so it will never happen again.
'scuse me Dennis, but what has happened in "anothers" has had a direct impact on me and on many close to me. Why do you think that your mindset is soooooo offensive to me? Do you honestly think I'm just a Catholic zealot? Do you want me to drop my own experience with real, living and breathing monsters relevant to our current time to chase your decades old ghosts that may not even exist?
I have to say I delight in seeing other more reputable media outlets taking advantage of the many opportunities they have to pillory the New Yuck Times. Of course this is the "newspaper" that famously got "Easter" wrong earlier this year. And that, in typically cowardly fashion, backtracked on its criticism of Obama's administration a few weeks ago. There have been too many examples of more credible news outlets decrying The NYT's repugnant anti-Catholic bigotry to include here. The following is just one recent instance:
"The New York Times's weird coverage of the president and the pope."
"Despite being based in Rome, the reporters don't seem to have a deep familiarity with the Catholic Church. They even quote a fellow journalist, from the Kansas City-based National Catholic Reporter, as an expert. What's really striking about the Times story, though, is its ideological perspective–one that views the Catholic Church through the distorting lens of contemporary American liberalism as that weird religion that discriminates against women and has some sort of hang-up about condoms. Again, it reminds us of the way totalitarian propaganda outfits "report" on enemy states."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324196204578300131285647290.html?fb_action_ids=10200668206007018&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582
As the only "newspaper" with no credibility to lose credibility, I would hope readers of TMR have, like me, long ago boycotted the New Yuck Times, and are encouraging others to do so.
Dolan asked the Vatican for permission to transfer the money to the cemetary fund to "protect it" from litigation, in his own letter. In America we call that hiding assets.
Link to support your assertion?
Bryan, just saw your post.You could always link to the N.Y. Times.
I give money to the church as trustee to maintain a gravesite for myself or my family and the church places in assuming that obligation ignorantly or inattentively places that money it in a general account though with an intent to fulfill that very purpose. Have they done right by me? Have they done wrong to anyone else in the world in assuring that this trust will be fulfilled by placing it in a proper cemetery trust account?
I give an attorney funds to be held in escrow. He or she mistakenly or errantly puts it in a business account. Does the attorney hide assets when he or she corrects that mistake by moving the funds to a trust account? Has the hidden assets or acted to fulfil a trust?
You know you create what you envision beware seeing persecution where there is none.
Cardinal Dolan was the "golden boy" so long as he appeared to support the Times' lefty (BHO) agenda re: ObamaCare (AHCA), Immigration, Farm Bill, etc. As soon as he stepped out of line on the AHCA, he became fair prey/game. It'll keep the Old Gray Whores' "hands" busy until she gets her next crop of fake Church abuse cases or document dumps that say, in effect, nothing much.
So long as the Old Whore doesn't have to look too closely (if at all) at the NYC teachers unions (protectors of abusers), or make the NY Jewish lobby (and gay mafia) uncomfy with a tighter look at either public schools or Yeshiva's, the Old Tramp is still faithfully servicing her pimp and her johns – the lefty politicians (the Obama's, Cuomo's, Weiner's and Spitzer's of the political world).
Wouldn't subject the bottom of my bird cage to the NYT bile (same for NC Reporter).
As this latest "black legend" assault against the Church entes it's final death throes, expect the Barbarians to ramp up their attack; just as any virus increases in strength just prior to being conquered into remission, or out of existence.
Of course, it will be a short-lived remission, but, it is these regular bouts and battles that strengthen the Church, after all.
On a positive note, Vanity Fair (Italy) appears to be a big fan of Pope Francis (as is Elton John, go figure) – His Holy Eminence is Man of the Year, after just 4 months.
That ought to make the lefty madmen even crazier (if that's possible).
What is meant by the headline:
OCD at the NYT ? Please explain.
OCD stands for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Here is an explanation.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-ocd/index.shtml
The idea is that the NYT is obsessed with the catholic church sex abuse and that they are compulsively writing articles on the subject, even when there is nothing really to write about. The implication is that this is all in their heads, the result of disordered thinking.
Once again commenter Ecker resorts to some sort of threats or violence (“non-violent”, slyly).
What “actions” are these that Ecker is allegedly taking?
How distinguish a genuinely abusive priest from a not-genuinely-abusive priest? Has he figured out how to solve that problem yet?
How does he envision going about righting “all the wrongs”? (Having first, of course, figured out how to reliably determine the actual “wrongs” from the alleged “wrongs”.)
This all seems like a recipe for a personal psycho-drama script that will keep him in business ad infinitum – which perhaps is what it’s all about for him anyway.
Publion, For you
Action # 1 – Got you not to write a comment as long as War and Peace !!!
3p, How about when the accused priest admits in a friendly forum that he did the sexual abuse of which he is accused? What then?
That happened with John Geoghan. Just read the documents released by the RCAB. I know you can find them at BishopAccountability.org.
VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis, acting to end years of scandals damaging the Catholic Church, overhauled Vatican law on Thursday to specify sexual violence against children as a crime and impose tough penalties for staff who leak confidential Vatican information.
Ya, he is realizing that rape of a child is a crime. But he also makes it a crime if someone comes forward and reveals the confidential information of those who maybe committing those crimes.
I hope everyone gets a chance to read this article in MSN today and also reads the comments that follow.
Jim, we know, it's what we've been trying to tell you and other victims, forever. Your persecution complex will be turned against you.
The whole world is aware of the abuse matter in the Church, it is largely resolved, and now the light must be allowed to focus on those other entities, that still permit abuse and cover it up, and that still operate in the dark.
The Chuch admitted, paid, repented and resolved their abuse problem. Any further unjustified actions against the Church should now be considered persecution (as defined)because the intent, as stated here by Church opposition forces, is to "put her out of business".
The persecutors of the Church should heed your warning.
For those of us not reliant the MSN or other lawyer wannabee filters, here is the Vatican press release of the law revisions, "unplugged". There were several complicated and extensive revisions and updates, with the child protection updates and additions totally disconnected from/unrelated to the "leaker" plugs.
So much disinformation, miscommunication, and outright lies from the Church haters and bigots – their minds are just too restricting to comprehend the expansive mission and obligation of the global See. Too bad they miss the Glory of it all.
http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-issues-motu-proprio-on-criminal-law-m
In the matter of the murdered Geoghan:
First, what is the nature of the abuse to which he “admitted”. And if he is found guilty then the law is to be carried out. In Geoghan’s case, he was convicted – if memory serves – of fondling a boy’s buttocks when helping him climb out of a swimming pool. He was sentenced by a judge who claimed that she “just knew” he had done more things and given the maximum sentence. (In serving which, he was – as noted – murdered, under highly suspicious circumstances by another inmate.)
But second, how many such instances are we to suppose existed in the American Catholic milieu over the course of the past (pick a number here) decades? Are we merely to presume that all of the allegations made were genuine – although there were formidably corrosive influences introduced by the Stampede, especially after Anderson’s strategy to sue the Bishops/Dioceses and their Insurers rather than the individual accused priests?
It has always been my position that it was precisely this presumption that enabled the matter of abusive (however defined) priests to turn into the Stampede we have now. And that careful examination of specific cases – as in the normal course of law – would yield some valid instances but would hardly support the astronomical numbers that have been claimed or asserted.
But that the basic dynamic of the Stampede was, is, and always has been the effort to move quickly from individual specific cases (the possible legitimacy of which I do not in any way rule out) to the rather global presumptions with which we are all familiar, whereby individual specific cases and allegations are not widely or carefully examined, and instead a general presumption of their validity is merely indulged.
Nor does the working-out of such very few cases as have come to trial give grounds for confidence in the integrity of the legal handling of matters, as we see in both Philadelphia cases (2012, 2013). Nor does the release of documents (e.g. Los Angeles and Milwaukee) yield much ground for confidence in terms of handling by significant elements of the mainstream media.
So it will – and must –require far more than a single case (leaving aside for the moment the specifics of how that case itself was handled) in order to allow the Stampede’s presumption of vast numbers of abusive (however defined) priests to stand un-considered; and to allow the Stampede’s further presumption of vast numbers of criminally collusive Bishops to stand un-considered.
To Dennis Ecker, LearnedCouncil and Jim Robertson, how do the crimes of the Catholic Church justify those of the public schools?
On a somewhat different topic, Dave mentioned gay marriage up the top. Woe betide anyone who speaks against it in this day and age! I speak from personal experience. Check out this Youtube video where a straight girl is bullied because everyone else is gay. I posted a comment on how I couldn't support gay marriage and have been reviled myself every since. If any of you have Youtube accounts you might wish to sign in and back me up because I am fighting a losing battle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ROXTFfkcfo
How do the crimes of the Catho;lic Church against it's own and others' children, justify a get out of jail free card by discussing other crimes in other places as a way of ameleorating your own church's CRIMES
That's like a murderer saying:" Well those guys killed somebody too." referencing other murderers.
The answer naturally would be a large: "So what?" We are talking about your murder.
Mark T, I do not understand the grammar of your question.
I know that you are not looking for back up from me but I do see that you are in need of it. Perhaps, 3p will break formation over at the flight school and come to your aid.
With respect to homosexuality, it is just another form of love. Anyone not in favor of equal rights and equal treatment under the law for homosexuals should be invited to do better by changing their minds. They should not be respected for that view.
Homosexual sex is not a sin, just as sex is not a sin. There is no such thing as sin. "Hate the sin not the sinner," is a trashy piece of equivocal catholic moral relativism. Pseudo-intellectuals like saying things like this because it sounds to them like they have a really highly nuanced view formed into a perfectly pithy slogan. White noise is all it is. Why should a homosexual not be able to enjoy the pleasure and affection of sexual relations with his/her partner? They should remain celibate and deprive themselves? That is harmful and abusive advice to give anyone who might believe such nonsense.
Anderson had the letter when he deposed Dolan last February – guess the truth about the legality of the funds transference to the Trust will leak out, eventually- but certainly not before the hater-bigots (and their pitbull media) are first provided some more Catholic meat on which to feast for awhile.
Same MO, likely- misinformation, lies and distortions on the front page (think NYT) and the inevitable corrections will be buried near the back somewhere (if ever).
The media and the hater-bigots have well-exceeded the Church in untrustworthiness. There is no spotlight on the predators here, but, plenty on the prey in this chase drama. If this is the best evidence, out of thousands of documents, the predators can find to support their claims, it isn't much. The Church is entitled to defend itself, and its resources, when fending off largely bogus claims.
Back to protecting minors being abused in the here and now (as opposed to up to 80 years ago, allegedly) - anyone looked into the financial management practices of the public schools, Hollywood, athletic, synagogues, etc., yet?
Just wondering….
Please, please, will someone enlighten me……..
What does the "OCD" stand for and/or represent in the heading that is atop this topic?
Is a Catholic religious murderer or rapist or enabler not to be mentioned in the news because they are Catholic?
As if on cue: in response to my question as to just what "actions" commenter Ecker is taking, we get nothing but the snark that he has taken the action of getting me to write a shorter comment. Leaving unlisted any actual actions that would be responsive to the question about the claim that he made. Which "actions" – like so many other bits of internet whimsy we have seen here – may only exist in his mind.
And as per usual we get nothing but "snark" from P.
Commenter Ecker once again urges that we read an article for which he provides no information.
I would recommend this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324879504578599273666351836.html?KEYWORDS=vatican+sex+abuse+rules
In the Wall Street Journal for Thursday of this week, the new Pope announced updated rules for sexual-abuse-of-minors. I haven't seen the text of his Motu Proprio yet, which is the instrument by which he chose to institute the changes.
Two curious points are raised by the WSJ.
First, SNAP's CEO Clohessy has already complained now that this is just "tweaking" and that "The church hierarchy doesn't need new rules on abuse. It needs to follow long-standing secular laws on abuse".
This seems to me a classic example of the Playbook requirements, which must be implemented no matter how incoherent the consequences. Because to hear the Abuseniks tell it, there have been no really good sex-abuse laws – secular or otherwise – until they got to work. To what "long-standing" laws, then, might Clohessy be referring? Rather, Clohessy must follow the Playbook and try to put the worst possible Spin on whatever comes out of Rome.
But – as we have seen in some Playbooky commenters on this site and we have seen going as far back as local Red cadre-cells changing their stance overnight if that's what Moscow wanted – the incoherence between the Abusenik/Victimist claims of widespread indifference to sex-abuse (however defined) until they got their Games going and this sudden proud pointing-to "long-standing secular laws on abuse" is simply ignored; today's press conference and sound-bite is all that matters.
Also, the WSJ notes that the there is a UN Committee having to do with the rights of children, which has asked the Vatican for – among other things – a) detailed and specific information about any and all abusive-priest cases in the Vatican files and b) wants to know what the Vatican is doing to remove "gender and sexual stereotypes" from religion texts.
The WSJ shrewdly and forthrightly labels this a "new frontier of the law".
Meaning that in reference to Catholicism, we are now seeing (secularized) bureaucrats at a UN Committee trying to 1) do a favor for the Abuseniks and see if they can shake loose more document-dumps (those work really well, don't they?) – this time from the Vatican under the cover of UN authority (dubious, in this instance).
And 2) those same bureaucrats are now trying to effect the weakening of Catholic teaching by using 'children' as a way to censor unacceptable (to the UN bureaucrats) religious teachings (hidden in the code phrase "gender and sexual stereotypes").
With the ICC having refused to get in on the Game, the Abuseniks are having a go at the UN now.
If nothing else, the Abuseniks can hope it will Keep The Appearance Of The Ball Rolling.
Now, if the rest of the secular (and religious) world could only catch up with the Catholic Church, and State, there would be far fewer victims of sexual deviants.
Maybe the NY and LA school administrators (liberal state union employees/members) will get a clue, eventually.
http://www.catholicvote.org/fast-and-furious-francis/
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories/012402_documents.htm
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ma-boston/archives/PatternAndPractice/0322-Delaney-Exhibit-142.pdf
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ma-boston/archives/PatternAndPractice/0324-Plaintiffs-Exhibit-19.pdf
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ma-boston/archives/PatternAndPractice/0330-1996-07-11-Flatley.pdf
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ma-boston/archives/PatternAndPractice/0310-Geoghan-II-06948–06949.pdf
The Boston Globe article is a good summary of the case of John Geoghan. I grabbed a few of the supporting documents that the article draws on just because you seem resistant to looking things up yourself. You asked me what the nature of the abuse to which he admitted was. Homosexual activity with young boys including touching and "etc." And this is drawn from no mean source. His brother priests and bishops knew and they stated what they knew generally and somewhat euphemistically in their internal, previously-confidential records. See D'Arcy's letter to Law. He just states it like a fact that everyone would know.
In fact, in 2002 a judge reinstated child rape charges against Geoghan, whose January trial on lesser charges arguably set off the whole massive sexual abuse scandal in the RCAB. In restoring the charges that dated from the early 1980's, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Margaret Hinkle reversed her previous ruling that prosecutors had waited too long to indict Geoghan on charges of fondling and orally raping a boy who was 7 to 10 years old. Most of the incidents and accusations in the long record of Geoghan were too old under the MA statute of limitations to act on criminally. That is why they used the Waltham pool crime from the early 1990's. It was the freshest case they had under the statue at the time from an accuser willing to testify.
Jailing Geoghan was the just thing to do in order to protect people from him. Would that it could have been done sooner. Another prisoner killing him was wrong because murdering people is wrong.
Mark T, fear not – the truth about gay "marriage" and the true motives of those who would foist it on the rest of the world are being exposed around the world. Russia has banned the adoption of its children by same sex "parents." Africa has told Obama where he can stick his social engineering agenda. In France, despite the politicians ramming legislation through without a referendum, the majority of the people are against its provisions, there is a huge and growing popular movement in favor of marriage proper (Manif Pour Tous, which counts many gays among its supporters), and thousands of mayors have stated they will rather face prison time than administer this nonsense. And in those countries which rushed to introduce the folly, there is growing discomfort about its consequences – particularly for children.
I wouldn't worry too much about the porn-addicted denizens of YouTube.
And the facile attempt to smear defenders of marriage proper is wearing thin, as the truth will out: It is not discrimination to treat differently things that are different.
To Michael- OCD is Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder- a psychological disorder. Usually expressed as obsession with [illogical] unnecessary repeated or ritualized behavior (ex. hand-washing).
It seems a perfectly acceptable application by TMR to the case of the NYT negative obsession with the Church.
Since I have been unable to elicit a response either from the group here on this issue or Mr. Pierre directly, my investigation on the Internet has located the following site to assist in this endeavor to determine the meaning and/or purpose of "OCD" in the title to this topic.
http://www.acronymfinder.com
At this site, there are over 200 choices for the meaning of the acronym "OCD". I am hopeful that either Mr. David Pierre or another contributor can help me with the meaning of "OCD" in the title.
Are you serois that you don't know what OCD stands for?
Wow.
Ok then.
Catholics are only 26% of the US population, that leaves 74% "other".
There is a recorded history (not subject to revisionists) of antiCatholic bigotry in the US.
There is currently an assault [directly aimed at religious freedom] on the Catholic Church by the current Administration [not to mention what is happening globally].
Where is all the media coverage of the "other" 74% of minor abuse cases?
As a minority, where are Catholics civil rights protections?
And, that is why the sole focus of the abuse matter on the Church is wrong. That is why what crimes are being committed in other sectors, which remain un/underreported in the msm – and worse, unprosecuted, matters.
There is no other word for what is happening to the Church in the US, but, persecution.
It is surprising that those claiming to be oppressed, minority or some "other" under-represented status in the US are not aligned with the Church.
And, that is why it is pure antiCatholic hatred and bigotry driving the whole persecution.
Yes there was discrimination against Catholics in the 19th century and in various parts of America at other times.
You may not know this but discrimination against gay people is quite alive and well right here. You don't seem to care about gay peoples rights very much. Or Iraqi peoples rights either. You invent persecution fantasies the same way you've created religious one's.
When you" do it "it's"moral". When we do it. It's against "God's will" or "Nature's laws"
Sometimes I wonder if D is one or perhaps several people? It's possible her emotional range is nothing if not extreme. Anybody?
We come now to LC’s of 1257 today.
The first overall note is to point out that he so very often doesn’t engage the material in the comment to which he is ‘responding’ (as it were) but rather creates his own take on the material that he is going on about, then responds to that take (of his) and considers it a good day’s work.
Readers may have noticed this in his last comment on the ‘Hollywood Awards” article (to which I did not respond because the thread was closed immediately thereafter): when I put questions to him about his position I am merely making the “argument from personal incredulity”, i.e. that when I ask how this or that position can work I am actually merely saying that I don’t believe that his vision can work. When in reality what I am doing – having pointed out a discrepancy or incoherence in his stated material – is to ask him how his philosophical system can work in light of the problems I have just pointed out.
But in his philosophical universe (as opposed perhaps to the philosophical universe) there is no difference there: if you don’t ‘believe his vision’ then you simply don’t-believe (and therefore are – in his logic – an un-believer, marvelously) and not-believing him is your problem and not his. Neat.
So if I were to point out, for example, that the truck he has designed with square tires is going to have a problem right off the bat, and then ask him “How will that work specifically?” I am merely demonstrating my “incredulity” and lack-of-belief in his personally-preferred vision. That I might be politely though acutely trying to see how his vision systematically incorporates square wheels and then accounts for the difficulties those elements will cause … that does not occur to him. (What sort of philosophizing do they teach at Harvard, one wonders.)
Anyhoo, to the Geoghan material and his 1257 comment.
First, as I specifically pointed out in my comment of 903PM last night, it will take more than a specific individual case to establish the Stampede Vision. That remark quickly raises the reality of how the Stampede has managed to get where it has today: specific individual cases based on specific individual allegations are left unexamined but highly and emotionally portrayed as being typical of Catholic priests’ abusiveness. And from that rotted core mistake the poisonous fruit of the Stampede has been built, layer upon layer.
But that’s too much of an issue to tackle, so LC heads for more familiar and comfortable and preferred ground: he would like to rehearse the Geoghan case.
I specifically did not go into the Geoghan case because it was not relevant to the point I was trying to make: that even if there are specific and individual cases that i) can be legitimately established and ii) are legitimately adjudicated, we still have the core Problem: one or even a gaggle of isolated (but legitimately demonstrated) cases do not provide sufficient grounds for creating the Stampede that we have come to know. I even went to the trouble of expressing clearly that there may indeed be some “valid instances” and that I would not at all rule-out their “possible legitimacy”.
LC however now wants to demonstrate his chops by rehashing the Geoghan case – as if I had somehow deliberately avoided going into that case.
So let me address the material LC put up (which, as I said, was not the actual gravamen of my own original comment).
We have seen the Boston Globe’s role given some illumination by D’Antonio’s book.
The Globe link leads to a late-January 2002 article (the Globe’s own highly-calculated campaign had kicked off at the beginning of that month).
Geoghan is mentioned in a sub-Bishop’s 1989 memo-to-himself as being described by a psychological assessor as being “an explosion waiting to happen”; and yet Geoghan was allowed to continue in ministry (although denied a desired assignment as pastor). I would agree in this case with attorney Garabedian’s reported characterization that “the archdiocese acted irresponsibly in its handling of Geoghan”.
I recommend the article because it does give us insight into how an organization can yield to numerous dynamics that should not be allowed to govern its ultimate decisions (Geoghan was the nephew of a Monsignor, perhaps an influential one back in the 1950s and 1960s; the Archdiocese did not want to give cause for scandal (in the canonical sense; although the much better approach would have been to consider Geoghan’s proclivities (and observed academic shortcomings)themselves as the actual core of any potential “scandal to the faith”).
There is no mention of the type of ‘abuse’ that Geoghan perpetrated.
The Bishop-Accountability site lists the single conviction of “fondling” but notes there were lawsuits with many allegations of “raping” and “molesting” that followed.
Afterwards, a judge reversed herself and allowed his being Charged with “fondling and orally raping” a boy who was seven to ten years old. I point out that once the 2002 phase of the Stampede had started, and Geoghan had already been convicted and imprisoned, it cannot be ruled out that a State judge yielded to the pressures of the Stampede and reversed herself on what had been a Statute of Limitations issue (which are usually rather clear-cut); we have seen far more overt examples of judicial yielding to pressures in the two recent Philadelphia cases. And that Geoghan was then murdered in rather suspicious circumstances while in that State’s penal custody (his own private cell was somehow unlocked; another prisoner got out of his own presumably locked cell, made it all the way to Geoghan’s cell unobserved, and killed him) doesn’t do much to further inspire confidence in the integrity of the whole matter.
So I do not defend Geoghan here (nor have I ever) and I most certainly think that his case – indeed his entire clerical career from seminary onwards – was handled poorly.
But what I had originally commented about was the dynamic by which a very few isolated and specific cases (and this one still raises doubts) cannot justify the Stampede we saw develop and which, in these latter days, is still trying to keep itself going. All of Geoghan’s career pre-dates the Dallas Reforms (and they have been increasingly strengthened over the course of the past decade).
So to bring in the Geoghan case here reduces itself to simply trying to turn the clock back to an earlier time, during which intervening period substantial reforms have been put in place and all extant studies of allegations indicate that they have had substantive effect.
Once again, Geoghan’s case here can only serve as a way to somehow Keep The Ball Rolling. And to do that specifically by trying to seduce people into thinking that Geoghan was and still is representative of the Catholic clergy and hierarchy even as it exists today (as opposed to one or four decades ago).
This type of insinuation, innuendo, and ungrounded inference can only exist in a universe that appeals to a certain type of mentality, one already predisposed to a certain larger hostility to (take your picks: God, religion, Catholicism, male priesthood, the Beyond, or any sort of ‘authority’ generally).
But I will also share this: LC’s uncharacteristically quick and extensively-referenced comment of 1257 today has opened up a thought in my mind. Specifically: was LC actually sent to Harvard and/or law-school and/or employed (in some non-functional or non-trial position) by a law firm that was involved in the Stampede originally? Would that have been the price for getting a seminarian to ‘come forward’ in the service of the Stampede? I don’t know and I don’t see it as profoundly relevant to matters here; it is the material I concentrate on, wherever it comes from. Nor do I see JR as being to able to offer any dispositive information in this regard, certainly nothing more than a denial based on his personal illuminations, preferences and feelings.
But I do consider this thought relevant in this regard: we begin to see not only a ‘hall of mirrors’ as regards to the veracity of allegations but an even wider web of events or possibilities that have been incorporated-into and enabled the Stampede. In the Philadelphia trials we have seen more than enough grounds for concern that the legal system itself has yielded to various pressures to an extent nobody would have thought possible (although some purportedly knowledgeable commenters on the BigTrial site have claimed that such skullduggery is par for the course in Philadelphia jurisprudence or in criminal trials generally nowadays).
D’Antonio’s book – as I discussed in comments at the time – goes into an unpleasant and uncomfortable amount of detail about how a particular law firm in Boston maneuvered to give the Globe what its reporters wanted, calculating how to ‘get around’ legal requirements and restrictions.
In pointing these bits out, I am not trying to distract from Geoghan’s case – such as it was – and I have already placed my opinion about his clerical career on the record here. But it becomes clear to me that there are many ‘organizations’ involved somehow in the Stampede, and they are not all simply sub-units of the Church or the Church itself.
Michael, see Delphin's post above (keep up the great posts, Delphin!).
While Delphin and TMR are spot on with the Old Whore's obsession, a few alternative versions of the OCD acronym ("OCD at the NYT") are offered for readers' consideration:
Odious Catholic Defamation.
Ongoing Credibility Deterioration.
Obviously Chasing Dead-ends.
It does indeed seem that the Old Courtesan is growing Desperate.
I am not aware of the Catholic Church persecuting Iraqi citizens, so, I don't see the analogy, anybody?
I am not aware of the Church having any secular authority over gays in America, so, again, not seeing the persecution, anybody? No, you may not marry in a Catholic Church, tough. Neither can siblings, parent-child, polygamists, divorcees, atheists or bestialists marry in a Catholic Church. Tough for them, too, worship at another church. Anybody?
AntiCatholic persecution dates back 2000 years, and continues today – almost everywhere. Christians are suffering the greatest number of persecutions worldwide.
I'll let your own posts, here and elsewhere, speak to your emotional stability, anybody?
Why do you seek help/endorsement, can't you handle me on your own-don't trust your own perceptions? Anybody?
Oh why even bother to explain, your personal support of a right wing politic. A politic that has invaded and slaughtered in Iraq.
Your Church uses it's tax free money to fight the rights of gay Americans. Prop 8 just kicked to the curb by the Supreme court was a prime example . They along with the Mormans trew millions of tax free dollars at their fellow citizens.
The media and the legal system was hijacked by leftist politics/ideaology, generations ago, such as was/is the educational system, entertainment industry and unions- all of which help form popular culture, and public opinion. There is no doubt about that fact (not hypothesis), which is also acknowledged by leftists. Why is so hard for some here to accept the "obvious" that the lefts biases affect the conduct of their business in those venues that currently prosecute and persecute the Church? It's akin to denying that the sky is blue. Yet, at every chance at a juvenile potshot, the left refers to Catholic "imaginings". Ironic. Don't worry about whether or not science (your incredibly flawed god) can prove the existence of the one true God, worry about how your own ignorance is assisting powerful forces planning for your own demise, and the advent of a new world order, of slavery. Faithful Catholics will never succumb to the will of/enslavement by the State, it'll only be the duped that do so.
There is no greater opposition, or enemy, of the left than the Catholic Church - which has been their prime target from the beginning of their liberal-progressive (atheist) movement centuries ago.
The Church is the only force that stands between full execution of the lefts radical agenda and loss of our God-given freedoms via "transformation" of our nation from individual liberty to state domination. Nothing reflects the lefts "progressive" agenda better than the current administrations' (leftist anarchistic) law breaking (which is solely focused on oppression of it's own citizens) to achieve its ends - totalitarianism, and nothing less.
Too bad these incredibly naive members of the left (blacks, gays, feminists), being so overtly and shamelessly "used" by the leftist elitists, do not have the foresight to see how that totalitarianism will be set upon them as soon as the "transformation" is completed. Only faithful and productive breeders of similarly productive workers and breeders, designed to serve the whims of the elites, will be of any use to the totalitarian regime, the rest are expendable "surplus". Think of this fact in terms of abortion, genetic engineering, homosexuals, euthanasia, civil rights, "entitlement" groups, disabled and "universal health care" – how's that lefty agenda looking to you now, "ninety-nine percenters"? Did you really think the generations of brain-washing designed to dupe you into worshipping yourselves and the State, rather than God, was designed for your ultimate freedom? Only God promises, and delivers freedom to Man.
Then, you have some of the duped (some of them TMR commenters) that think their faithful support for the lefts "transformation" agenda will buy them a seat at the regimes table. Beyond naive, plain stupidity. If you've been successfully trained to think only selfishly, in the here and now, and not consider future generations or beyond the limitations or boundaries of earth, congratulations, you have been successfully seduced (conquered) by evil, aka atheistic totalitarianism.
And, as of now, as a unified force, only the Catholic Church stands against the enemy of freedom in our country, and the world.
Right-wing politics is dominated by non-Catholics and is not controlled by Catholic doctrine, so, take up your political aguments with them. Fake Catholics like Pelosi and Biden (who supported the Iraq war "before they were against it"), to mention just a couple or "your own", do not represent faithful Catholic politics (or anything).
Prop 8 was the California citizens desire, one more than one occassion. Again, take your issues to the Califronia voters. Catholics and the Church have as much right to weigh in on politics as do Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Al Sharpton (of the Church of MSNBC) or Jesse Jackson of the Rainbow Coalition "Church"; all fellow tax-exempteds. Obama's IRS may have tried to adversely effect the approval of conservative organization exemptions, but, he sort of just got busted (on that one, and quite a few more brazen constitutional and/or legal breaches). He is such an "appealing" Oppressor/Dictator, with or without his teleprompter (aka his brain).
Gay marriage (OXYMORON) is as useless and silly as a expecting a productive union between an ass and a horse- it produces nothing (literally, less than a mule) worthwhile to society, so why accomodate, support or facilitate it? Love and sex (distinctly different) do not require marriage in the secular world, why the lefty laser-focus on marriage? Oh, it must have something to do with money (those same tax reliefs you criticize for the Church, perhaps?) and the other entitlement bennies; yep, true "love" all over the place there. Or, maybe its just about the destruction of the backbone of a moral society that predates Christianity, as well as the ability it will afford to continue assaults on Catholicism?
BTW- I am so happy that all the killing in Iraq, centuries before the Democrat Congress-supported US action [which freed Iraq from dictatorship and gave them the government they chose] and since, has finally ceased. That part of the world was been so peaceful, "progressive" and freedom-loving. Why, just look at Syria, Eqypt, Lybia, Iran (to name a few) - all perfect models of a free and peaceful people, sans US "intervention". Why have we not included Afghanistan? Has anyone seen Cindy Sheehan lately – is she still camped outside of GWBs ranch? Hmmm, someone should check on her, she may need provisions.
We don't want you to let any of those annoying fact-thingies bog down your case for your lefty opinions, just keep letting it all "flow" out. Consider the TMR site your very own "phychiatrists couch" -
[edited by moderator]
Poor America. The richest country in the world and 27th or lower in child mortality.
Ayn Rand the true face of the "Lord' in America. You obviously never went to Catholic school.
So "blacks;gays and feminists" were created by the right because they love us so? LOL!
The only thing being made "surplus" in America is the working class because there are fewer and fewer life supporting jobs thanks to your two dieties , god and capitalism. You sound like a well supported house frau.
Hali Burton? Is that a new Hollywoody actor?
Anyway, I do believe the lefty mantra at the time (after voting for/authorizing the US action) was that the US intervention in Iraq was all about OIL. Didn't I see those bumper stickers on every jalopy Smart- car and VW being driven by a frizzle-haired, horned-rimmed eyeglass, pencil-necked, frumpy [homely] university prof?
I haven't seen that Iraqi oil market for the US come to fruition, yet. Seems as though China and Russia benefitted most, economically, from the US action, perhaps that explains the Dems full-frontal support for it.
The Republican party has been well-infiltrated by liberal-progressive (Democrat) ideology. Stop looking to political parties for abidance/adherence to left or right idealogy, look to the ideaology and morals of the politician, alone. GWB was/is a Liberal-Progressive on many geo-political issues, and a Christian Reformist on others; he is not Catholic and he is not Conservative (and neither was/is his father, brothers).
Don't expect Catholics or Conservative-Libertarians (Freedom-lovers, all) to lock-step with any political party. That is political and worldly naivete.
Remember, the faithful Catholics' leader is Jesus Christ, and none other.
How many more of these persecutions of Catholics by "gays" (that word used to mean "happy"- guess he wasn't) are being criminally hidden or ignored by the media? I wonder if there was any investigation into his abuse of minors? Perhaps, these abuse victims grew up to become abusers (perhaps priests), themselves, for lack of treatment, or compensatory "justice". Would that make the media or law enforcement complicit in a cover-up?
https://cnsnews.com/news/article/bishop-catholic-mom-murdered-gay-man-died-martyr-her-faith
The haters/bigots who comment on TMR are absolutely incapable of being responsive to any constructive thought, fact or concept; no doubt, they are products of the public school system, social promotion, and/or failed liberal [il]logic.
Whatever I am, or not, other than a faithful Catholic, has nothing to do with the facts regarding your ideaology. When you are unable to respond to those facts, you default to personal attacks and inuendo, always.
Not much "there" there, is there, you poor thing?
Perhaps, you, too, can just fill up a little bag of "goodies", ripe with your human waste products and just heave them at all those people you don't like, too (ala Texas lefties)?
Publions' monkey-feces image comes to mind, again, whenever we're faced with dealing with those rank and skank lefties.
!2 solid years of Catholic education here.
[edited by moderator]
Yep, one just need to look to the Socialist and Communist nations to see a great middle [working] class, thriving economy and high standard of living. Think North Korea, China, Cuba, Europe (God help her), much of Africa, Central and South America….shall we continue?
Masochism is not as much fun as Capitalism, regardless of anything you've been told by the older kids on your block.
Brutus Delphinius, do you know that human beings are so close to each other genetically that if we were dogs we would be but one breed. That is amazingly little difference!
i cannot believe that your statement about blacks, gays and feminists is the worst thing I have read here on this site. That it was not moderated out as stupid and hateful shocks me. Everyone who is not like you should notice these thoughts of yours and ridicule you for them.
Please catch up to the present and know that we are all Africans. African apes to be more precise. You should like and uneducated angry loser when you say racist, sexist, and anti-homosexual things. Disgusting.
Try your PC-racism bait on one of your own, more susceptible leftist dupes, it won't work on me.
There is NO DOUBT but that the leftist elitists are using their twisted ideaology to exploit those perceived as oppressed (they really aren't, but , you wouldn't want them to know that, now, would you?) to do their dirty work- that is the lefty's stated (as in documented) strategy. Those groups the left targets as "easy [captued] prey" include blacks, over 95% of whom voted for the leftist Administration, along with the feminists and gays, who voted the very same way (we have not forgotten the "war on women, gays and black"' mantra that helped get King O re-elected). This is a statistical TRUTH, that it bothers you, makes you rather racist, now doesn't it? The comment wasn't "moderated out" because it is the truth, and it is not racist; but, your ideaology, that of Marx, Engles, Alinsky and Sanger certainly is. Your ideaology manipulates, exploits and talks down to these groups (real oppression), and then continues to make them Dependent upon you (as a Statist-dictator) so a to ensure a slave constituency.
Really, is that the very best Harvard has to offer? My, how the Ivy has shriveled.
[edited by moderator]
D,The only thing that seems to "work on you" are miracles that don't happen.
L.C. here's another "valentine" from me. Thanks.
Hon, it's your racism that's being highlighted here by you.
Have you ever read any "Engles" (it's Engels")?
May I suggest his "History of the Peasant Wars in Germany" He's a wonderful writer.
[edited by moderator]
25% under 25 year old black unemployment in the U.S. right now. And" they " just don't realize they are treated fairly. You are not well.
How ironic, a minor misspelling of a name (I am also aware of my chronic toggle-spelling of "ideology" and "supposed", so don;'t bother to go there) being highlighted by the King of Killing the Kings English, "hisself". How about responding to the content of the post, Boy Wonder?
Not surprised that particular name would be the only correct spelling you've nailed in quite awhile, he is your god.
And, this example perfectly showcases the hypocrisy of the left.
Find someone else to "Bush-bash" or "Palin-ize", neither way will ever work with me- I am just too ornery to care what you or your other lefty girlfriends think of me (what you all think you know) or my position on the politics behind your attack on the Catholic Church.
I've watched you and your cronies personalize your attacks, after being thoroughly thrashed on your arguments, with every opposition commenter here. Here's a news flash, girls, we don't care what you think about us, personally. Some of you have even, desperately, resorted to threats of violence and litigation.
[edited by moderator]
Please defend Bush and Palin. I need a good laugh.
Tell Obama, your god, about the high unemployment in the black youth sector, as well as all the other sectors struggling to survive the past 5 years of "transformation".
What's that unemployment number in Cuba, North Korea, Russia, Socialist Western Europe, Central-South America, Asia, Africa?
Anybody?
Oh but this is the best of all systems according to you. Ha!
Well if Obama is my "god" at least I've met him and had a cigarette with the guy. Have you ever done similar with your imagiinary friend? As I've said earlier he was in his early 20's and was very conservative in his way that he approached the world.
[edited by moderator]
Delphin,
Who has resorted to threats of violence and litigation ?
I think TMR would not only not post comments such as that, but would take proper actions if there is.
Could it be that the high unemployment is as a result of the fact that the majority of black youth are raised in single-family (and otherwise totally dysfunctional environments) homes (because that is just exactly the way their State-Daddy wants it) and that over 70% of them don't graduate high school?
How's that all working out in Chcago these days? Their mayor is an indigo-blue politician, what happened over there? We may have to rename BoysTown "Deadboys Town, soon, you would not like that very much.
The facts just do not ever line up with the lefts "Kool-Aid" talking points.
I am quite sure, though, you did take some of that ill-gotten Church booty of yours and did your share of community service out there is WeirdVille -right? Are you a Big Brother to a minority youth? Volunteer much? Probably not, as is the case with most lefties, they want to take taxpayers earnings and just "redistribute" them to the needy (as if much of it survives the bloated government "vig") so as to ease their own consciences about what they don't/won't contribute to charity.
Another fun fact: lefties (the minority of you that do pay taxes) contribute the least amount of money to charities.
[edited by moderator]
"Weirdville"?
Do you mean the most Catholic city, population wise, in the most populous state in the U.S.?
And to answer your question about black unemployment. It's because there are no jobs. Jobs, you know, jobs? Those elusive things that were sent scurrying off to other countries for profit.
Back to my "ill gotten Church booty".
When I first got my settlement I made them give it me in cash so I could take a bath in it. I rolled around in it squealing like a wee porker and thought now I can be a Republican or Libertarian or a liberal Dem. Us poor folks used to just see them on T.V..
Now I could be as a big an ass as most Americans who have money.
Pretend I'm smarter than everyone else cuz now I'm not a loser. I'm a winner. I've got money. U..S..A.! USA! USA!
Hogwash!